"We consider that to be not a significant distinction. Whether waivable or not, timelines send exactly the wrong singnal [sic] to our adversaries, our allies ... our troops in the field."

OK, so does even talking about timelines send the wrong signal?

If so, then what's the difference between talking about timelines and having actual, waivable timelines? I mean, the 'damage' is done, isn't it?

And, will this president ever take responsibility for ANYTHING? or just delegate it away (e.g., 'War Czar') or pass the buck?

Yes, that's a rhetorical question.

I wish someone would put up a billboards across the street from the Crawford Ranch and from the White House with a running script of the U.S. soldiers who have died or been crippled by this Bush QUACKmire. It should include graphic pictures of the violence scrolling within the content. Maybe the BBC map of Violence as well.

Hmmm. Does the President want Dems to simply not fund the Occupation? Is he hoping, on some level, that they'll give him an excuse to get out?

Alternately, has anybody told him that Congress isn't his rubber-stamp anymore? I know giving some people bad news can be difficult, but it seems like someone should have let him know by now ...

Therefore:
Having President Bush required to step down in 2009, possibly to be succeeded by one of these America-hating appeasers, also sends the wrong message to the enemy.

President for Life!

Also, until the 75/25 oil law is signed, BushCo will not consider ANY scenario that would involve leaving before the oil and it's revenue are assured. This is, after all, why we got into this mess in the first place.

This is precisely what I've been thinking since Cheney went over there last week to pressure the "people's elected" Iraqi parliament. If they take their proposed 2 month break, that's a major blow for BushCo because it greatly reduces their chances that the oil law will get passed anytime soon. I think they can feel the pressure that Congress might actually force them to bring the troops home before the parliament returns from break.

The Democrats need to start a media campaign now! While the President's numbers are not good, they need to push him down even further into single digits, and no funding!

"He will not accept any accountability or responsibility," Pelosi said.

You go, girlfriend!
It isn't exactly a spanking but I think that's the toughest and most plain-spoken bit of truth I've heard yet from this congress.

Congress isn't his rubber-stamp any more, but it looks pretty clear that we are going to spend the next almost two years in thankless cycle of presidential vetoes. This administration has rendered Congress impotent by refusing to accord them their Constitutionally-mandated co-equal role. Ignoring subpoenas, "creative" testimony under oath, claiming executive powers not actually granted in the Constitution--I don't see how, short of impeachment, Congress is going to be able to deal with these guys. I predict a long, frustrating and fruitless end to the reign of King George.

Another big concern--the American people seem to think that since this Congress has not been successful in pushing through checks and balances on the Presidency they are not doing anything (note the slip in approval in recent polls). In actuality, this Congress has made more attempts at oversight in the past few months than the previous Congress did in six years. Is there a way we can reprogram this meme?

Who are these people, freaking Kreskin and Houdini and the Great Wallenda all rolled into one? Josh Bolton and John Boehner know what AlQuaida is thinking?

I am so sick of these insurance-type guys. Always able to gum up any plan that isn't their own with pseudo-tripe and double-talk....it isn't in our interests, sends the wrong message, buys into the terrorists thinking, if we do THIS the terrorists win....blah blah blah. Anyone can come up with technotalk that reduces everything to babble. Anyone can do boogeyman talk about how if we pull on the wrong straw BOOM everything falls down.

Over and Over and Over...they say very strong definite things about OUR PLAN, but their plan has no hard facts, milestones, checkpoints, no purpose, no goals, no ANYTHING. Yet all their boogeyman stuff get's articulated over and over. All their doomsday prophesies get played again and again. They have been proven wrong, over and over as well.....so why do they get play on their boogeyman and doomsday crap?

Their plan is to wait and see. Give the surge a chance. Yeah, give nothing a chance to do nothing. Yet, if you have anything concrete to ask of the Admin.....what a terrorist lover you are! What a defeatist. Well, what do you call someone who just sits there in a cozy office claiming we have to 'wait and see' and refuses to admit that he has no plan, no goal? Worse than a defeatist, that is for sure. Listening Boehner? Asshole goes on and on about defeatocrats and surrender monkeys....as if he is actually wiping sweat and dirt our of his eyes. The repubs wouldn't be so bad calling people surrender monkeys if they were actually trying to win something. They're not, they're only playing Hide The Monkey. Which makes their blasphemy all the worse.

Think Regionally. Act Regionally

While I firmly believe that the Occupation needs to end, I do worry about that sort of defunding-by-default. Given BushCo's history of both incompetence and political hackery, I fear that a d-b-d withdrawl would be handled incredibly badly, both for our troops and for the Iraqi's.

I'd like to include "reality" as a concept the boy-President won't accept.

While I consider this far-fetched, could Bushco be establishing a story line that "Since the Dems won't co-operate by supporting the troops, then they must be supporting our enemies and shouldn't be sitting in Congress. Therefore I have ordered special, secret Homeland Security forces to transport the Dem Congressional leaders to Guantanimo for interrogation about their connections to terrorists, and have appointed special legislators in their place in accordance with my powers as CinC."

Maybe not that far, but house arrest is a viable compromise.

I'd suggest this President will continue the occupation whether or not there is a funding bill and that he thinks it within his Unitary authority to do so. Beyond that, it is a point he *wants* to make, that he is above the law. No one calls him on it.

Therefore: Having President Bush required to step down in 2009, possibly to be succeeded by one of these America-hating appeasers, also sends the wrong message to the enemy.

President for Life!

Yes, as we heard in 2004, you don't switch horses in the middle of the stream and you don't switch Presidents in the middle of a war.

It doesn't matter how it happens. It will be a disaster, regardless of whether it happens now or later or much later. There's no state there anymore.

When this President is finally gone and the protective layers of power and fawning stupidity of the media are gone...

We'll see the starkest transformation from "president" to pathetic twerp in all history.

It's just too bad that the mantle of the Presidency legitimizes actions and statements that would be met with contempt, scorn, ridicule, and derision out of anyone else.

On the other hand, I would have thought the Democrats would have learned by now that Bush doesn't negotiate with people who disagree with his position and who don't respect his primacy. This is all theater on Bush's part. Are the Democrats really as naive as they appear to be, or is this all theater on their part as well?

"Now we have to see how the teevee stations cover the events."

Well, we know how Fox and CNN will cover it: "Do-nothing Dems fail again".

You're thinking this would bother them. That's because you think you share a moral imperative with them. You do not.

Would you have allowed New Orleans to be destroyed and then ignore it?

Would you have done nothing while the country was being attacked?

Would you start a war on lies?

Would you joke publicly about missing WMDs while troops were dying in Iraq?

I don't see why there's such a need to look reasonable in the face of idiocy.

There are two ways to go. One is to keep entertaining a large, confusing bunch of possible bills without really acting, and get the Bushies into time panic.

The other is to bring up zeroing out funding if the idiocy continues.